Negligible interaction test for continuous predictors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioral science researchers are often interested in whether there is negligible interaction among continuous predictors of an outcome variable. For example, a researcher might be interested in demonstrating that the effect of perfectionism on depression is very consistent across age. In this case, the researcher is interested in assessing whether the interaction between the predictors is too small to be meaningful. Unfortunately, most researchers address the above research question using a traditional association-based null hypothesis test (e.g. regression) where their goal is to fail to reject the null hypothesis of no interaction. Common problems with traditional tests are their sensitivity to sample size and their opposite (and hence inappropriate) hypothesis setup for finding a negligible interaction effect. In this study, we investigated a method for testing for negligible interaction between continuous predictors using unstandardized and standardized regression-based models and equivalence testing. A Monte Carlo study provides evidence for the effectiveness of the equivalence-based test relative to traditional approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.115 | 0.499 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".